Librarians and Faculty Are Concerned About Misinformation, But Differ in How to Implement News Literacy in the Classroom
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of: Saunders, L. (2023). Librarian perspectives on misinformation: A follow-up and comparative study. College & Research Libraries, 84(4), 478-494. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.84.4.478 Objective – To explore academic librarians’ perspectives on misinformation, including how they teach it in the classroom and their perceptions of undergraduate students’ news literacy competence. A secondary objective is to compare academic librarians’ and faculty’s misinformation perspectives using data from the author’s previous study (Saunders, 2022). Design – A Qualtrics-hosted online survey modified from the previous study. Setting – Two electronic mailing lists from the American Library Association (ALA). Subjects – There were 189 respondents. The target population was librarians employed in a college or university with at least some library instruction responsibilities. Methods – The electronic survey was distributed in March 2021. The quantitative analysis included descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests to identify any statistically significant differences in responses between librarians liaising with different departments and between librarians and faculty. Main Results – Academic librarians agree that mis- and disinformation is a major concern. The survey defined misinformation as “inaccurate information shared by accident,” and disinformation as “inaccurate information shared on purpose to mislead/deceive.” In the article, misinformation was used to encompass both terms. The majority of librarians address news literacy during classroom instruction using a variety of methods, including active learning and, less often, using assignments with news literacy outcomes. Librarians who do not teach news literacy report that faculty members do not request this type of instruction, and that they do not have time to teach it. Faculty and librarians agree that misinformation is a concern, and that news literacy instruction is important for combatting misinformation. However, faculty members were more likely to report that misinformation was not relevant to their discipline, and that news literacy instruction should occur elsewhere in the curriculum. Faculty also tended to rate students’ proficiencies in identifying misinformation as higher than librarians. Conclusion – The majority of academic librarians and faculty are concerned about misinformation and agree that news literacy instruction is an important method to address it. It is unclear how librarians are teaching students how to identify misinformation and if they are using evidence based methods to do so. Many faculty members do not include librarians in this instruction or do not believe it should be addressed in their discipline. Based on these results, librarians could provide outreach to faculty members about how librarians can address misinformation within their disciplinary curriculums. They could also provide training workshops to faculty members to enable them to teach these skills on their own.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,052 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,013 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».